Clientelism Isn’t Only for the Poor: Wealthy Favor High-Value Copartisan Promises

Why Study Class and Clientelism in Lebanon?

Clientelism—the exchange of goods or services for political support—is typically thought to target poorer voters. Melani Cammett, Christiana Parreira, and Sami Atallah test whether that assumption holds when clientelist offers vary by type and value. Understanding who responds to different kinds of patronage matters for theories of political support, party strategy, and regime accountability in developing-country contexts.

How the Study Was Done

The authors use a conjoint survey experiment carried out in Lebanon in which respondents evaluated hypothetical national-election candidates who made different clientelist pledges. The design varied the type and monetary value of goods and services offered, as well as whether the candidate was a copartisan, to observe how voters across socioeconomic groups trade off these attributes when choosing whom to support.

Key Findings

• Both poorer and wealthier respondents tend to reject lower-value clientelist offers rather than accepting them as a default.
• Across most comparisons, rich and poor show similar reactions to different kinds of clientelist goods and services.
• A clear class difference emerges for high-value pledges: wealthier voters prefer large clientelist promises from copartisan candidates, while poorer voters do not show the same copartisan-conditioned preference.

Implications and Open Questions

These results challenge a simple, linear view that clientelism is primarily a tool for winning over the poor. Instead, the interaction of class, pledge value, and partisan ties shapes responsiveness to patronage. The findings prompt further research into how wealthier voters engage with patronage-based parties and how parties tailor clientelist offers to different socioeconomic segments in comparable developing-country settings.